Roth v. United States 1957

• Author: Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw
• Pages: 184-188

Contenidos

• Obscenity declared worthless.
• What about art?.
• Obscenity changes.
• Suggestions for further reading.

Page 184

Petitioner: Samuel Roth

Respondent: United States of America

Petitioner's Claim: That publishing and selling obscene material is protected by the First Amendment.

Chief Lawyers for Petitioner: David von G. Albrecht and O. John Rogge

Chief Lawyer for Respondent: Roger D. Fisher

Justices for the Court: William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, Felix Frankfurter, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Whittaker

Justices Dissenting: Hugo Lafayette Black, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II

Date of Decision: June 24, 1957

Decision: Federal and state laws that prohibit the publication and sale of obscene material are constitutional.

Significance: The Supreme Court officially declared that obscenity is not protected by the freedom of speech. It also defined obscenity for future trials.

Samuel Roth ran a business in New York City. He published and sold books, magazines, and photographs that dealt with the subject of 0sex. Roth advertised his goods by mailing descriptive material to potential customers.

Page 185

He was convicted in federal court for violating a federal law that made it a crime to mail obscene material.

In a separate case, David S. Alberts ran a mail order business in Los Angeles, California. Alberts also sold material that dealt with the subject of sex. Alberts was convicted in a California state court of violating a state law that made it a crime to sell obscene material.

Roth and Alberts both took their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said their convictions violated the freedom of speech. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging [limiting] the freedom of speech."

Roth was convicted under federal law, which is governed by the First Amendment. Although the First Amendment only mentions the federal government, state and local governments must obey it under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This allowed Alberts to argue that his conviction under California's obscenity law violated the freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to review both cases to determine whether the First Amendment protects obscenity.

Obscenity declared worthless

In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of both Roth and Alberts. Writing for the Court, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., said obscenity is not protected by the...